Mason, R (on the application of) v Crown Court at Winchester & Anor

Appeals to the Crown Court under the Firearms Act 1968 are merits appeals, but must be conducted fairly. The appellant must receive reasonable notice of the reasons and material relied upon, and a proper opportunity to correct or contradict the case against them. Hearsay and other logically probative material may be considered, although it may require reduced weight. The court may regulate its procedure and limit irrelevant evidence, but it must not restrict evidence or submissions on issues which prove central to its decision. At the very least, a party against whom the appeal is determined should normally have an opportunity to make submissions. A failure to provide that opportunity may render the decision unlawful and require a rehearing before a differently constituted court.

The claimant sought judicial review of the decision of a Deputy Circuit Judge and two magistrates at Winchester Crown Court, which dismissed his merits appeal against the revocation of his firearm and shotgun certificates by the Chief Constable of Hampshire. The Crown Court had limited the evidence and did not invite final submissions from the claimant, although it later relied substantially on allegations of domestic violence in dismissing the appeal.

The claim raised whether the procedure adopted by the Crown Court denied the claimant a fair hearing, having regard to the statutory merits appeal and the requirements of natural justice.

1. The statutory scheme required the Crown Court to determine the appeal on its merits, using the statutory criteria and considering any evidence or other matter, whether or not available when the Chief Constable made the decision. The court therefore stood in the place of the original decision-maker for the purpose of reaching its own decision. (Paras [23]-[25], [37].)

2. The rules of natural justice applied both to the Chief Constable’s administrative decision and to the Crown Court appeal. Their precise requirements depended on the decision and its context, and the appeal might also engage article 6(1) of the ECHR. The appellant was entitled to reasonable notice of the reasons and material relied upon, together with a proper opportunity to correct or contradict it. Strict rules of evidence did not apply, and hearsay could be considered if relevant and logically probative, although it might attract less weight. (Paras [44]-[48].)

3. The Crown Court could determine its own procedure. Ordinarily, the respondent’s evidence should be followed by the appellant’s evidence and then submissions in the same order. The court might restrict exploration of genuinely extraneous matters. However, it would ordinarily be unfair to determine an appeal against a party without first giving that party an opportunity to make submissions, particularly where the court relied on issues central to the decision. (Paras [49]-[51].)

4. The Crown Court had curtailed the claimant’s evidence concerning the allegations of domestic abuse and had not invited submissions from him. Those matters were subsequently treated as central to the dismissal of the appeal. The claimant had therefore been prevented from properly correcting or contradicting the case against him and from addressing the decisive issues. The Crown Court’s determination was quashed and the appeal was remitted for rehearing before a differently constituted court. The merits were left entirely open. (Paras [52]-[55].)

5. Obiter guidance was given for future appeals, including staged exchange of evidence bundles, time estimates, skeleton arguments and authorities, and the usual order of evidence and submissions. (Paras [56]-[57].)

• Winchester Crown Court: on 19 May 2017, a Deputy Circuit Judge sitting with two magistrates dismissed the claimant’s appeal against revocation of his firearm and shotgun certificates.
• High Court (Administrative Court): the Crown Court’s determination was quashed and the appeal was remitted for rehearing before a differently constituted court.